Critics asked the FCC to stay its recent deregulatory business data service order (see 1704200020), and said they would treat inaction by Friday as denial. The record shows incumbent telcos are the only facilities-based provider in 86 percent of buildings with total bandwidth demand of 50 Mbps or less "because it is almost never economically feasible to build a new last-mile connection" in such situations, said a joint stay motion posted Monday in docket 16-143 by Windstream, BT Americas, Incompas and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee. They said competitors must buy last-mile connections from the ILEC to compete, and also often must buy dedicated BDS transport from ILECs. The FCC traditionally used price-cap regulation to control rates, but new leadership "abruptly changed course without seeking further comment" and "adopted results-driven new rules divorced from well-established market analysis principles, precedent and" the previous commission's 2016 proposals, said the motion. ILECs will be allowed to detariff Aug. 1 "and to replace discontinued BDS with higher-cost alternatives, creating the prospect of enormous disruption and uncertainty as the industry migrates to a new paradigm of Commission indifference to competition," said the groups, arguing they met the requirements for a stay: "Moreover, a stay would not harm the ILECs, and instead would avoid massive and permanent losses that would be unrecoverable in the event of reversal." The FCC, stay movants and ILECs didn't comment. The FCC rarely approves such requests, leaving critics to seek court action. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was recently chosen by lottery to hear challenges to the BDS order (see 1706160022), but Incompas and Sprint said Friday they would ask that court to transfer that case to the D.C. Circuit, which has before it an AT&T challenge to a 2016 BDS tariff investigation order. Incompas and Sprint opposed an FCC motion the D.C. Circuit remand the tariff case to the agency (see 1706260015).

Most of the comments in the FCC open internet rulemaking favor repealing the 2015 net neutrality and Communications Act Title II broadband reclassification order, said Consumer Action for a Strong Economy Monday. CASE, a "free-market voice" for consumers, said it analyzed the 4.99 million comments filed in docket 17-108 by June 20 (more than 5 million were filed as of Monday). "Roughly 65% of the docket is in support of repeal of the 2015 rule," it said. "Nearly 6% of comments filed are coming from self-identified international filers, and approximately 75% of all comments are from letter campaigns coming from both sides -- for and against repeal." Commenters' "sentiment was determined based on the clear language indicated in the form letters we tracked on both sides of the debate, which comprise the majority of the docket. We also used key terms indicating support for or against the current Title II-based rules," CASE said. A spokeswoman for a group drumming up support for the 2015 net neutrality order voiced skepticism, "given the utter lack of real grassroots support for [FCC Chairman] Ajit Pai's plan to dismantle net neutrality protections," though she acknowledged she would have to dig into CASE's methodology. "Given that the FCC has refused to do anything about the hundreds of thousands of fake anti-net neutrality comments that were submitted to their API [application programming interface] using real people's stolen names and addresses, this sentiment analysis is essentially moot, because it's including comments that the FCC (and everyone else) knows were not submitted by real people," emailed Evan Greer, Fight for the Future campaign director. "A valid sentiment analysis would take that into consideration and would work to separate out the comments that are known to be fake. It does not appear that CASE has done that, which means they are making claims based on data that they know to be tainted."

Ajit Pai said 5G, and opening new bands across the spectrum, will be a big focus of his time as FCC chairman. Pai spoke Monday at the “Broadband for All” seminar in Stockholm, and the agency posted his remarks. Pai called 5G a national priority. Fifth-generation wireless “promises exponential growth” in the IoT, he said. “It could let mobile broadband consumers download 4K movies in seconds. It could enable cooperative collision avoidance for cars and remote robotic surgery. It could bring the full power of virtual and augmented reality into reality.” One key is flexible service rules, he said. “We basically make spectrum available and then do our best to stay out of the way of technological development and the details of implementation.” U.S. spectrum policy brings to mind a Swedish word -- “smörgåsbord,” he said: “We aim to free up all kinds of spectrum -- low-, mid-, and high-band -- for both licensed and unlicensed use. We are convinced that this approach allows mobile innovators and consumers alike to feast.” Pai didn’t announce any new initiatives on spectrum. Arturo Robles-Rovalo, commissioner at Mexico’s Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones, tweeted that he met with Pai at the conference to "review ongoing joint work and analyze common goals.” Pai tweeted about meetings with RS Sharma, chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, plus officials from Canada, Israel and Sweden.

The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition backed Alaska Communications' request the FCC provide "full funding" for the USF rural healthcare (RHC) subsidy support program (see 1706200049). "Even though the demand for RHC funding has increased substantially in the past year -- exceeding the $400 Million cap -- the Public Notice issued by the Office of Managing Director (OMD) proposes to collect less than $0 for the third quarter of 2017 for the RHC program," said an SHLB filing Friday in docket 96-45. "Without taking public comment or going through a rulemaking proceeding, the Public Notice proposes to change existing policy and to use reserve funds from prior years to cover the RHC demand for the upcoming quarter. This policy change is a dramatic departure from prior practice." Peninsula Community Health Services of Alaska, Ninilchik Traditional Council and Kenaitze Indian Tribe said (here, here, here) the reserve fund shouldn't be used to lower the USF contribution factor in Q3 at the long-term expense of the RHC program. Two other Alaska entities made similar filings recently (see 1706220020). A proposed USF contribution factor of 17.1 percent of carrier interstate and international telecom end-user revenue takes effect Tuesday absent FCC action. Meanwhile, the Wireline Bureau Friday waived an invoice filing deadline under the Healthcare Connect Fund for about 50 healthcare providers listed in an order Friday in docket 02-60.

Intervenors in an appellate case that voided the FCC's junk fax rule haven't met the burden of showing their petition for a stay of mandate presents a substantial question that justifies such a stay, the FCC said in a response (in Pacer) posted Thursday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Responding to the intervenors' motion for a stay filed earlier this month (see 1706130018), the agency said intervenors didn't demonstrate substantial harm that would come from the mandate not being stayed -- an argument echoed by the class-action defendant petitioners in their own filing (in Pacer) posted Thursday. The defendant petitioners said there's "no realistic prospect" of the Supreme Court granting certiorari, especially since the majority of commissioners agree the junk fax rule is unlawful. The defendant petitioners said the case revolves around "a narrow administrative law question on which there is no conflict of authority." Counsel for the intervenors didn't comment Friday.

FCC officials on Friday repeatedly and vociferously criticized a story by The Washington Post quoting critics who claimed Chairman Ajit Pai, as head of an independent agency, was inappropriately close to the Trump administration. FCC Chief of Staff Matthew Berry in tweets said the incorrect assertion Trump and Pai spent time together at the president's meeting with tech companies this week (see 1706220054) amounted to a "fake meeting," was "sloppy journalism" and "disgraceful" and gave it "4 Pinocchios," referring to the way the Post's fact-checking columnists rate inaccurate statements (see here, here, here and here). Pai policy adviser Nathan Leamer tweeted that the assertion about a Pai/Trump meeting was a "complete fabrication" and, after a Post correction online, tweeted it was "still baseless" (here and here). According to the FCC, Pai took part in the tech companies event but was in a separate breakout session from Trump in a different building. Reporter Brian Fung emailed us that the Post "promptly corrected the story after being notified of the mistake, which was unintentional." He said Consumer Watchdog advocate John Simpson, whom he quoted in the story, "continued to say the FCC chairman's involvement in the White House event was problematic in the first place, from his perspective." Commissioner Mike O'Rielly tweeted the story was "a nothingburger that fails to point out last Admin took wrecking ball to norm on interactions." And Leamer liked a tweet by Mercatus Center fellow Joe Kane saying: "I hear @AjitPaiFCC and @POTUS work in the SAME CITY!" The FCC didn't comment further.

AT&T's Washington chief sees more in common than not with major tech companies on some privacy issues. The company is "very much in favor" of the Balancing the Rights of Web Surfers Equally and Responsibility Act (HR-2520) by House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., as "I should have the same rules in place as Google has, as Amazon has," and the Browser Act "says that," said Senior Executive Vice President for External and Legislative Affairs Bob Quinn. "We’ll be in the same regulatory environment" at the FTC, he said on C-SPAN's The Communicators during a segment to be televised this weekend and to be put online. He noted the likes of Amazon and Google don't like the opt-in standard in the bill, which is "less important than the equal treatment and one regulator approach." Tech companies may be escaping some heat, as "in any debate, it's always better to be arguing about how you're going to regulate some other person than you are fighting the regulation," Quinn said: "I think they are going to be a little more defensive" as scrutiny may increase. ISPs compared to websites and apps may be "part of the same ecosystem, but [are] strikingly different in makeup," an Internet Association spokesman emailed us. "The ISP market has high entry barriers, burdensome or even nonexistent ability to switch providers, and consumers, according to FCC data, lack choice. In contrast, entry barriers at the edge are low and competition is just a click away." Meanwhile, AT&T may wrap up its buy of Time Warner by year's end, Quinn said. It's unclear how soon the full Senate will approve Makan Delrahim as DOJ antitrust chief, the executive said, after the Senate Judiciary Committee cleared him 19-1 (see 1706080025). "Timing of this is going to be tied up with a lot of other partisan disputes" on Capitol Hill, Quinn said of Senate approval: "It's not clear to us how far in that process we’re going to get" at DOJ and with any consideration of possible conditions before Delrahim takes over the Antitrust Division. "I think that conversation is just beginning," and AT&T produced all data and answered all questions the department sought, Quinn said. "That process will kick off this summer." At a meeting with tech, FCC and other officials Thursday, President Donald Trump praised AT&T (see 1706220054), after criticizing the deal on the campaign trail. DOJ declined to comment. On net neutrality, "the only way to ensure that is really through legislation," Quinn said. "Whatever this commission does, we’re in Washington, and we know the pendulum politically swings back and forth repeatedly in this town," he said of the FCC and "walk[ing] away once and for all" from Title II Communications Act common-carrier regulation of broadband service. "If the political pendulum swings the other way, we’re subject to the next FCC coming in and just backtracking." The company worried "use of Title II was going to lead to significant rate regulation," he recounted.

The FCC is proposing a $120 million fine against the Florida operator of what Enforcement Bureau acting Chief Michael Carowitz called "one of the most disruptive robocallers we've come across." It said Adrian Abramovich's Miami operation made more than 96.7 million spoofed robocalls in Q3 and ultimately made hundreds of millions of such calls. It said the fine was for violations of the Truth in Caller ID Act, with Abramovich using "neighbor spoofing" -- making it appear they were coming from phone numbers in the same area code and the first three digits of the recipient's phone number -- and purportedly selling vacation deals from travel and hospitality companies such as TripAdvisor, Expedia and Marriott. People who answered the calls were apparently transferred to foreign call centers that often tried to instead sell vacation packages involving time shares. The agency said the hospitality and travel companies weren't affiliated with the call centers. It said TripAdvisor contacted the FCC last year after receiving complaints. It said medical paging service Spok complained in 2015 about a major robocalling event disrupting its emergency paging service -- an event that was traced to Abramovich's Marketing Strategy Leaders. The bureau said the fine is based on 80,000 calls it reviewed. Chairman Ajit Pai said it was the first FCC large-scale spoofing enforcement action under the act. The enforcement action was approved Thursday 3-0, and multiple robocall items are on the July commissioners' meeting agenda, announced Thursday (see 1706220050). The bureau said Abramovich has 30 days to respond. The agency Thursday issued a citation to Abramovich for apparent violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act robocall limits and federal wire fraud statute. He couldn't be reached for comment. Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, concurring, said Abramovich had an intent to defraud, likely not an intent to harm. He defended some manifestations of neighborhood spoofing: "There are positive aspects of VoIP that allow a consumer to use a local telephone number and I don't want to see that wiped out. It's not all bad."

The FCC approved 3-0 an NPRM seeking comments on rules that would allow law enforcement and community institutions to get from carriers quick access to the information they need to identify and thwart threatening callers. In April, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau gave Jewish community centers an emergency waiver to trace a wave of bomb threats (see 1703030062). Under the proposal, institutions facing harassing or threatening calls would be able to work with law enforcement to access caller ID information of anonymous callers more quickly than the current, case-by-case waiver process, FCC officials said. “The proposal would amend the FCC’s rules to ensure that law enforcement and threatened parties can quickly identify threatening callers without the regulatory delay of applying for and being granted a waiver of the rules,” said a Thursday news release. “The proposal lays out a path that protects consumer privacy by ensuring that caller information only be disclosed for truly threatening calls and that only law enforcement personnel and others responsible for the safety and security of the threatened party have access to otherwise-protected caller ID information.” Chairman Ajit Pai said there are valid reasons for rules that in general keep the calling information private. “Blocking caller ID information for calls made from domestic violence shelters can protect people at risk of injury or even death,” Pai said. “But the protections afforded by this rule can also be abused, as events earlier this year suggested. In these circumstances, the core value of public safety must outweigh any privacy interest a caller may have in his or her phone number.” When an incoming call “is a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action, and the phone number is blocked, it is critical for law enforcement to be able to quickly identify its origin,” said Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. “Their ability to obtain caller ID information can literally be a matter of life or death.” Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said he sought changes to the NPRM and it now asks for comment on how to define security personnel “to ensure that it is an appropriate set of professionals.”

Commissioners unanimously approved an NPRM Thursday, seeking comment on creating a new emergency alert system code for situations when police officers are in danger. The FCC is “uniquely positioned” to support police officers and “help save lives,” said DOJ Deputy National Blue Alert Coordinator Vincent Davenport, who addressed the commissioners before the vote. The item is “a significant step forward in protecting the lives of law enforcement officers,” Davenport said. “We are not just advancing a policy,” said Chairman Ajit Pai. “We are affirming a principle: that we have a collective responsibility to protect and serve those who protect and serve us.” Though the final draft of the NPRM wasn’t released, a news release and comments from the Public Safety Bureau indicate it changed little from the draft released about three weeks earlier. The item seeks comment on creating a new EAS code that will be used to inform the public in situations where an officer has been injured, killed or is under threat, and descriptive information about a suspect is available to disseminate to the public, said bureau staff. “A Blue Alert could quickly warn you if a violent suspect may be in your community, along with providing instructions on what to do if you spot the suspect and how to stay safe,” the release said. Some states have Blue Alert systems, and the proposed rules would create a “national framework” that states can opt into, Pai has said. Some EAS officials said it’s not clear there’s a need for an additional EAS code (see 1706190080).